[LINK] NBN to cost 24 times South Korea's faster network, says research body

Richard Chirgwin rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Thu Feb 10 12:19:25 AEDT 2011

On 10/02/11 12:03 PM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
> Given its 30 year lifespan, I agree with most commentaries that a 
> simplistic cost benefit analysis is problematic. However, it is worth 
> noting, that the NBN is expected to return 7% on the government's 
> investment. After all, it is some people's superannuation.
> Good Governance of the Rollout both in terms of geography and 
> technology is crucial. I think there would be some benefit in rolling 
> out wireless, to provide coverage sooner rather than later.
> Richard, there is something you may be able to answer for me, at what 
> point is it proposed to aggregate the fibre traffic?
Define "aggregate"! :-)

I'm not just being silly here. Paul Brooks can talk this better than I, 
but there are multiple levels of aggregation. (Paul - correct what I 

1. International - the NBN won't aggregate international traffic (which 
is one reason I consider the notion that the NBN will implement the 
filter is just silly). An ISP (eg Internode) will get its customer 
traffic from the NBN, and will pass that over international links as 
appropriate, using whatever international arrangements is has - either 
buying transit in Australia from someone, or buying international 
submarine capacity.

2. Wholesale - NBN Co won't be the sole wholesaler. It's possible for a 
wholesaler to take an NBN service and create a "white box" product for 
downstream retailers (eg, companies too small to deal directly with NBN 
Co). In that sense, the wholesaler will aggregate traffic for its retailers.

3. NBN PoIs - the points of interconnect will aggregate traffic for NBN 
Co's customers (large retailers, downstream wholesalers).

I think you're asking about (3). Paul - am I right in saying that there 
won't actually be a single aggregation point?

> Marghanita
> Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> <plug>
>> Me on the EIU report:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/eiu_says_nbn_too_expensive/
>>> The headlines say all you need to know, surely? As reported 
>>> <http://www.smh.com.au/national/36bn-price-for-nbn-slammed-20110209-1an2x.html> 
>>> [1] all 
>>> <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/taxpayers-lead-the-world-in-funding-labor-broadband-bill/story-fn59niix-1226003302845> 
>>> [2] over 
>>> <http://www.telecomasia.net/content/korea-has-best-approach-broadband-eiu> 
>>> [3] the place 
>>> <http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Australia-lagging-world-in-broadband-plans-index-pd20110209-DW4FF?OpenDocument&src=hp1> 
>>> [4], Australia's NBN has been rated as too expensive and relying too 
>>> much on government support, according to the Economist Intelligence 
>>> Unit.
> <snip>
>>> *El Reg:* Reports have stated that the EIU calculates the Australian 
>>> government NBN commitment at 7.58% of total government revenues. If 
>>> these reports are accurate, can you please outline the basis of this 
>>> analysis?
>>> *Iain Morris:* The 7.58% figure is based on taking the public-sector 
>>> commitment of the plan (A$27.1bn in Australia's case) as a 
>>> percentage of annual government budget revenues for 2009 -- the last 
>>> year for which actual data was available when the report was being 
>>> produced. It's simply a benchmark that allows comparison between 
>>> countries. There is another benchmark in the report showing total 
>>> public-sector spending as a percentage of annual fixed-line retail 
>>> revenues in 2009, which also makes Australia stand out for the size 
>>> of its commitment.

More information about the Link mailing list